Elizabeth Olsen could have been in The Lobster
The actress had to turn down Yorgos Lanthimos' cult favorite because of her Marvel schedule
Aux News The Lobster
In a multiverse of infinite possibilities, there’s a world in which Elizabeth Olsen was in Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos’ oddball romance The Lobster. However, instead of being part of one of A24's flagship films, her schedule was otherwise occupied with playing Wanda Maximoff in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a role she just reprised for the sixth time in Doctor Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness.
In a new interview with the New York Times, Olsen opened up about the opportunities she’s had to miss out on because of her commitment to the blockbuster franchise.
“I started to feel frustrated,” she says. “I had this job security but I was losing these pieces that I felt were more part of my being. And the further I got away from that, the less I became considered for it.”
Though Olsen was occasionally seen alongside her sisters Mary-Kate and Ashley as a child, she made her mark as an adult with Sundance darlings Martha Marcy May Marlene and Silent House back in 2011. She continued to make a name for herself in lower-key fare before entering the world of big-budget action movies with 2014's Godzilla, though that paled in comparison to her MCU debut the next year in Avengers: Age Of Ultron, which grossed well over a billion dollars at the box office worldwide.
Olsen’s potential involvement in The Lobster was only described as “a starring role.” The 2015 film featured Rachel Weisz as the second lead opposite Colin Farrell, though Olsen could have been considered for other parts.
Outside of the MCU, the WandaVision actress has still been able to appear in indie movies such as Ingrid Goes West and Wind River. She recently wrapped filming on the HBO miniseries Love And Death.
Of course, scheduling conflicts have also prevented actors from being in the MCU. Emily Blunt notoriously missed out on playing Black Widow, a role that Scarlett Johansson went on to hold for a decade, because she was contractually obligated to be in Gulliver’s Travels.
29 Comments
It wasn’t that great honestly
I never finished it. It was a dull, nasty, dreary movie, and I mean taste is subjective, but I could never wrap my head around it, during the whole thing (before I stopped about 2/3 of the way through) I was internally asking myself “…people LIKE this?”
The house she was able to buy instead should come as a small consolation in the coming years.
Downey had the best take on this. “I have no interest in appearing in movies where they look at me to pay for the catering.”
Right? “I had this job security but I was losing these pieces that I felt were more part of my being.” Really sorry you can’t find a job that’s a part of your being, Elizabeth. Welcome to the lives of 98% of the rest of us. And we don’t even get paid millions of dollars to settle for a job that’s not a part of our being.
Dude, grow up.
There’s no need to be so pissy. The human brain is constructed to constantly take its surroundings for granted and yearn for more. Good for her for being open and honest.Sorry she didn’t include a sufficient number of “I’m so lucky” disclaimers per your standards before she shared an honest feeling in response to a question.
lol Yes, good for her for being open and honest and completely out of touch with what most people in the world are dealing with in their lives. She’s a hero.
She’s not a hero, she’s normal. And you’re still pissy, but I suppose that’s also normal.
Then I guess you and I are both pissy, since neither of us apparently can allow someone else to say something without something without getting mad about it.
When people like Winona Judd shoot themselves, everybody falls all over themselves to talk about how toxic it is that people act as though rich or successful people can’t be depressed.But all the rest of the time, if someone who has it “better than us” express discontent or longing, they get piled on for not being sufficiently content with their lot in life, as though that’s not the baseline condition of all humans. I just think that’s sort of shitty.
You’re entirely free to think that’s shitty, and if you can show me how I generally “pile on” to people who have it “better than me” simply because they “express discontent or longing,” then I’ll have have a better response to your comment. Otherwise, it looks like you need to address this complaint to someone else because I have no history of general antipathy towards rich people expressing just any sort of “discontent or longing.”And Wynonna Judd is still alive and well, never having shot herself.
Whoops. Last week was a long one. (Is anyone “well” in the wake of their mom’s death?)Anyway, I surely was being pissy and surely will be again. Just hit me the wrong way and I felt bad to see what looked like earnest discussion of a personal struggle being mocked on the internet. But that’s what you sign up for if you’re famous, and she knows that more than most, and your comment wasn’t vicious or anything. Just caught me in a mood. Sorry for calling you pissy.
No worries–I’m having a lot of problems with unchecked capitalism of late so super-rich people in general are just getting on my nerves.Honestly if she had said anything other than “part of my being” I wouldn’t have had as big a problem with it. Just putting it that way made it a very silver spoon problem that sounded stupid and tone-deaf to me. If she had just said “I had this job security but wasn’t able to pursue projects that that were more interesting to me,” or anything else, I probably wouldn’t have had anything to say about it. The rest of us can relate to wanting more interesting jobs. No one but millionaire artists can relate to wanting a job that’s “a part of my being.” lol
I know a guy who used to teach middle school that used that exact phrase in discussing why he kept doing it as long as he did. He ultimately went back to school because he said the money wasn’t worth dealing with the parents.But I’m remembering that I rolled my eyes when he said it, so I get you.
Or they’re like me, and have a job that is about perfect for who I am – but pays in four figures. Which isn’t a huge problem, I’m pretty capable of living on nothing – but it’s not ideal for people with families, or medical issues, and such.
The frequent “find a job you’ll love and you’ll never work a day in your life” BS you read often is elitist to the max… I’m not complaining, personally – I’m good with my life – but it annoys me to see people’s legitimate miseries with having to work jobs they hate, blown off like it’s always a choice for all people.
Word.
Thank goodness that didn’t happen. “The Lobster” sucked.One of the few times I ever considered walking out.
I just read the Wikipedia entry for the Lobster. That sounds like fucking trash. Also, Jason Clarke had to bail due to making Everest.
That’s okay, because anything that would reduce the amount of Rachel Weisz we get should be banned.
That’s nothing…*Kaitlin* Olsen could have been cast in La Cage aux Folles.
She’s fortunately been able to do things other than Wanda (though she’s great at that). Wind River is a wonderful movie and she was so good in it. And although the movie was bad, she was a fine Audrey Williams in I Saw the Light
She bangs her father in Old Boy, don’t forget that.
Oh for god’s sake – I totally missed that was her, in that movie…
“Olsen opened up about the opportunities she’s had to miss out on because of her commitment to the blockbuster franchise.”Interesting story, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.The Lobster filmed at the same time as Age of Ultron, which was her first MCU movie.She didn’t “miss out on” being in The Lobster as much as she CHOSE Avengers: Age of Ultron OVER The Lobster.I’m sure she has missed out on things because of the MCU, but she made a choice re: Avengers or The Lobster. She can’t blame anyone but herself for that.And anyhow, The Lobster was great and I wouldn’t change a single cast member.
I was really kind of underwhelmed by The Lobster. So, good for her?
Why didn’t they find a part for Ethyl? https://www.theonion.com/lapd-discovers-hidden-deformed-olsen-triplet-1819567036
I’ve seen this article posted on so many sites and not one of them bother giving proper context to the interview. Which is that Olsen was talking about her decision to return to the MCU after her initial three-picture deal ended after Endgame.She essentially says she was unsure because she missed out on parts to be in the MCU but ultimately decided to come back and take it one project at a time this time around. And she, of course, did just that by appearing in WV and DS2 recently. 80% of the comments are about how she should be happy with the money she has and stop complaining indicating that, like always, no one bothers to read actual articles and trusts the writers here who spin people’s words into whatever context gets them the most clicks.
The discourse seems so gendered, too: why do so many commenters celebrate it when the likes of Cage or Willis have been able to get away from the lazy roles they take because of financial obligations and do more interesting projects instead? Does it have something to do with the fact that they’re *men*? When did it become a bad thing for an artist to forthrightly and respectfully answer a question they were *directly asked* about the possibly ambivalent feelings they might have about being part of definitionally more generic projects? Oh, that’s right, when that artist is a woman…